Benedict expressed a belief that most of these "relationships" are heterosexual in nature, and that historically sexual relationships between men and boys have not been thought of as crimes.

"If you go back 10 or 15 years ago with different sexual difficulties - except for rape or violence - it was very rarely brought as a civil crime. Nobody thought of it that way... And I'm inclined to think, on [a priest's] first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime."

What. The. Fark?

Translation: "We used to Roger little boys all we liked and nobody ratted us out. I miss those days."

1: Inappropriate seductive behavior from a youngster is almost always due to them having previously been sexually abused by someone. Keep in mind here i said inappropriate behavior - like making a run at a priest.

2: The ADULT in that situation is supposed to, you know, BE THE ADULT. Failing to do so is inexcusable.

Sadly this is what many influential members of the Clergy, including the guy we now call Pope Benny actually believe, and it has been a major factor in their disgraceful response to the pedophilia scandal. To them many of these pedophile priests are holy innocents with no defense against these youngsters raised in a sex-obsessed secular culture. Therefore they just needed to be taken away from these evil tempters and say a few hail mary's and they'd be right as rain.

Yes it's insane, yes it fundamentally misunderstands the nigh-obsessive-compulsive way most pedophiles operate, but it let them not have to re-examine their views on priestly celibacy or sexuality, so they bought into it

In a recent interview with the National Catholic Register, Father Benedict Groeschel, of the conservative Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, said that teens act as seducers in some sexual abuse cases involving priests.

This guy is way beyond "influential" - he's a Catholic mega-star. He's been on EWTN forever. Groeschel is to Catholics as Neill DeGrasse Tyson is to armchair astronomers. People trust him. They listen to him as an authoritative source of information. As friars go, he's a total badass.

And he's saying shiat like this. Kreist.

Oh - and: If you go back 10 or 15 years ago with different sexual difficulties - except for rape or violence - it was very rarely brought as a civil crime. Nobody thought of it that way.

Bullshiat. It's still illegal to have gay sex in many states. And it's ILLEGAL TO RAPE LITTLE BOYS EVERYWHERE, YOU GODDAMN F*CKWIT.

notatrollorami:President Merkin Muffley: notatrollorami: ///Sequestered prison island for life or death, either way. For any true child predator.

Congratulations on increasing the number of child murders. Why do you hate children?

I understand the practical nature of that argument. It stands to reason that the worse the punishment for a given crime the greater the lengths a perpetrator will go to avoid getting caught. How then do we adjust the scales of justice? A night in the stockades with the townspeople jeering for kiddy diddling? Surely that would avoid any temptation the otherwise nice diddler might have to off the kid?

////Not actually a death penalty advocate because the system can't be trusted. Mostly I intended to express the notion that no child predator, if actually guilty, should ever have access to children again. Ever. First offense. It's an unchangeable predilection. But then I'm back to having to trust the system.

///Bad people on every side ruin everything for everyone.

It's a nice theory. Let me adjust it a little more for you:

Statistically, child molesters are likely to themselves have been the victims of molestation as children. That's one reason why they are so desperately hard to treat, even when they want help: Because the behavior has been set so early and deeply it takes years of dedicated therapy AND a genuine desire to change on the part of the predator. Not one or the other, but both.

So what we need to do is acknowledge this fact, first, and mandate intensive therapy for molesters who have indicated a real desire to change. Not optional or "They know the help is out there" but when they get caught they MUST have intensive, aggressive therapy, and probably while being incarcerated, It would need to be something between a mental hospital and a prison in that case. Follow that with monitored release over a period of years at least equal to the length of treatment.

The second thing that must be done is equally intensive and mandatory treatment for the victims. As children, they are more amenable to change, and yet right now, they get the same treatment as their offenders, ironically. "Let their parents take them home and get them help," knowing it is unlikely ever to happen. Instead, kids who are victims MUST receive treatment, on the public dime if necessary, and in their homes or a separate school location. This cannot be an option, or brushed aside with the idea that they're so young, they'll get over it. They won't, and a certain percentage will go on to commit the same kinds of crimes. (And the ones who don't offend will still carry the guilt and scars for the remainder of their lives)

Will this be difficult and costly? Yes. Will it infringe on the molesters' and victims' civil rights? Yes. Will it take many years to see results? Yes. But it is the ONLY thing that will stop child molesters short of execution and prevent future molesters from emerging. Otherwise, we will continue to replay the victimization/molestation cycle over and over again.

Part of your work here at Trinity has been working with priests involved in abuse, no?A little bit, yes; but you know, in those cases, they have to leave. And some of them profoundly - profoundly - penitential, horrified. People have this picture in their minds of a person planning to - a psychopath. But that's not the case. Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him. A lot of the cases, the youngster - 14, 16, 18 - is the seducer.

Why would that be?Well, it's not so hard to see - a kid looking for a father and didn't have his own - and they won't be planning to get into heavy-duty sex, but almost romantic, embracing, kissing, perhaps sleeping but not having intercourse or anything like that.It's an understandable thing, and you know where you find it, among other clergy or important people; you look at teachers, attorneys, judges, social workers. Generally, if they get involved, it's heterosexually, and if it's a priest, he leaves and gets married - that's the usual thing - and gets a dispensation. A lot of priests leave quickly, get civilly married and then apply for the dispensation, which takes about three years.

But there are the relatively rare cases where a priest is involved in a homosexual way with a minor. I think the statistic I read recently in a secular psychology review was about 2%. Would that be true of other clergy? Would it be true of doctors, lawyers, coaches?

Here's this poor guy - [Penn State football coach Jerry] Sandusky - it went on for years. Interesting: Why didn't anyone say anything? Apparently, a number of kids knew about it and didn't break the ice. Well, you know, until recent years, people did not register in their minds that it was a crime. It was a moral failure, scandalous; but they didn't think of it in terms of legal things.

If you go back 10 or 15 years ago with different sexual difficulties - except for rape or violence - it was very rarely brought as a civil crime. Nobody thought of it that way. Sometimes statutory rape would be - but only if the girl pushed her case. Parents wouldn't touch it. People backed off, for years, on sexual cases. I'm not sure why.

I think perhaps part of the reason would be an embarrassment, that it brings the case out into the open, and the girl's name is there, or people will figure out what's there, or the youngster involved - you know, it's not put in the paper, but everybody knows; they're talking about it.

At this point, (when) any priest, any clergyman, any social worker, any teacher, any responsible person in society would become involved in a single sexual act - not necessarily intercourse - they're done.And I'm inclined to think, on their first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime.

1: Inappropriate seductive behavior from a youngster is almost always due to them having previously been sexually abused by someone. Keep in mind here i said inappropriate behavior - like making a run at a priest.

2: The ADULT in that situation is supposed to, you know, BE THE ADULT. Failing to do so is inexcusable.

Yeah. I'm sure the victims aren't all wide-eyed innocents, but it doesn't matter whether the kid thinks it's okay. It's up to the adult to know that this is wrong and act accordingly.

Benedict expressed a belief that most of these "relationships" are heterosexual in nature, and that historically sexual relationships between men and boys have not been thought of as crimes.

"If you go back 10 or 15 years ago with different sexual difficulties - except for rape or violence - it was very rarely brought as a civil crime. Nobody thought of it that way... And I'm inclined to think, on [a priest's] first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime."

Times change, pal. We don't condone human slavery, or public floggings, or pubic dismemberment, vivisection or burning as executions any more either.

ShannonKW:Here's a thread full of condemnations, furious calls for barbaric punishment, dogmatic claims, black-and-white attitudes, and herd thinking -- some of it the evident result of glossing over an entire page of text to find a line to justify it all. The people doing this are apparently atheists.

The interview itself is characterized by open-mindedness, reluctance to condemn, objectivity, forgoing of moral absolutes, and willingness to make concessions to human nature. This person is a Catholic priest.

It's quite a spectacle to see secular humanism transformed into the demon it was conceived to fight. Friedrich Nietzsche was right.

No, the interview is the same Catholic BS covering for the crimes of their peers. The interview was basically, "Oh it's okay to use your position of power to abuse minors as long as you aren't literally farking them" and "We got away with it in the past. What's the big deal now?" And this is his reaction after repeated scandals and cover ups. This man is supposed to be a moral authority and yet he can't even condemn sexual molestation of minors by people in positions of power. No, he goes the other farking direction and blames the minors for seducing the adults.

Here's an example of a time to forgo moral absolutes: stealing food to feed your starving familyHere's an example of a time NOT to forgo moral absolutes: an authority figure molesting a child

Well the quote in the article was bad enough, but when you read the whole interview that just comes across as horrible, creepy, and pedophilic. (Oh and did I mention lots of victim blaming?) Really the whole comment of sympathy for the pedophiles is just horrible.

As a Christian, yeah - fark him. Hell, even Jesus says fark him:

This is a direct quote from Luke 17:1-3: "Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. 2 It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. 3 So watch yourselves."

cookiefleck:I've said it before.. all FARK atheists seem really miserable. Like their life goal is to prove someone wrong.

We're not miserable because our life goal is to prove someone wrong. We're miserable because no matter how many times we prove people wrong, they stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALAICAN'THEARYOU!".

Rreal:Admittedly, while this guy is disgusting as all fark, growing up a boy, I remember being distinctly resentful of there being no available girls on the market as every single goddamn last one of them were openly, -openly- hunting down older cock. either college age guys or in many cases full grown men.

not saying it's -right-, I'm just saying the guy kinda has a point that sometimes it's the jailbait that's the agressor.

Maybe work on being more mature? The reason lots of girls go running, screaming towards older men is because young guys like you are still into game playing

i hope that twisted arse freak dies a horribly painful death. may the suffering be drawn out over a good long time.

I was born into the RC faith and force-fed every rite and ritual until I turned 18. That is a lot of damage to undo. It takes time. Now I'm old. I got better.

Outside of social obligations (weddings & funerals) I will never step foot into another RC church, and they will never see another penny from me.

I'm confident there is a shiatload of people like me across America & around the world who have lost their faith. People aren't as tolerant and forgiving as some may think. Enough is enough.

They molest children, protect men who molested children, lie to those who look to them for truths, and browbeat their faithful into giving up their hard-earned coin. They have twisted the minds of the masses for hundreds & hundreds of years. They are responsible for incredible amounts of deaths and suffering. Many of their leaders have been some of the most notorious characters in history. Their current #1 guy was a Nazi.

I have more respect for junkies, whores, used car salesmen and alcoholics than I do for the RC Church.

This may be true. Teens are horny and when I was thirteen or fourteen I didn't know why I should have to wait til I was 18 to have sex with adults. Nonetheless, the adult in that situation needs to be firm and say no. The kid may think he wants to have sex but he can't legally give consent, so the adult needs to be the mature one and stop anything from happening.

1: Inappropriate seductive behavior from a youngster is almost always due to them having previously been sexually abused by someone. Keep in mind here i said inappropriate behavior - like making a run at a priest.

2: The ADULT in that situation is supposed to, you know, BE THE ADULT. Failing to do so is inexcusable.

Yeah. I'm sure the victims aren't all wide-eyed innocents, but it doesn't matter whether the kid thinks it's okay. It's up to the adult to know that this is wrong and act accordingly.

Exactly.

What goes through the minds of priests in these situations SHOULD be "Holy Fark, this kid's problems are way bigger than mine are. I've got to get this kid some got damn therapy. And call social services."

It's depressing, disgusting, and uncanny that when you hear about a kid pursuing an inappropriate relationship with an older person, it's almost always because they are farked up over something someone did to them.

Used to be almost every episode of that radio and then tv show that adam corolla did with dr. drew - some girl or guy would start sobbing about some farked up relationship, Dr. Drew would ask "Were you abused by someone earlier in your life?", and they would admit it. Every damn time. It's a farking red flag.

The One True TheDavid:The My Little Pony Killer: St_Francis_P: The My Little Pony Killer: Any Fark Christians here to speak out against this guy? No?

Would you settle for an agnostic saint?

Good enough for me. I'm just noting that this is a really good thread for the usual "I'm a Christian, but this guy totally disgusts me" crowd to make an appearance.

I'm an atheist, and I don't give a damn. In the first place it is possible that "[in a] lot of the cases, the youngster - 14, 16, 18 - is the seducer." I seduced a few older men when I was a teenager; they weren't Catholic priests but then I moved in a very non-Catholic world. And whatever grave hormonal disorders some Farkers might suffer from, most of us guys stopped being little boys before we got to be "14. 16, [or] 18."

Should priests be mindful of their vows and not partake with a sexually developed person of either sex, regardless of who's the seducer? Yes, of course: vows, like other promises, should be kept whever possible; if you don't mean to keep it or can't try very hard to then don't make the vow. But I'm not going to get very upset about "abuse" of somebody who in most of the world is old enough to get married and in most cases is mature enough to knock females up.

If it's okay for your average "14, 16, 18" year guy old to consensually fark a buxom "hottie" teacher then it's also okay for him to consensually get it on with a Catholic priest. Even if the priest is male too.

That's why this guy threw out those ages to make his argument - to make it sound better. 18 is legal everywhere and as long as it is consentual and not coerced, it's fine and no one cares, priest or not. 16 is legal in many states, so same deal. 14 is illegal. Period. I don't care if it is a mature 14 year old. An adult has no business being with 14. Bad.

He threw out those ages here, 14, 16, 18, but the truth is, the priests he is talking about have been accused of molesting 8, 10, 12 etc. Just like Sandusky whom he defends. He feels the same way about the little ones, but he is smart enough to know he could never get away with saying so.

scottydoesntknow:In a recent interview with the National Catholic Register, Father Benedict Groeschel, of the conservative Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, said that teens act as seducers in some sexual abuse cases involving priests.

Something about Jesus in the desert, not giving into temptation, etc.

I seem to recall in some other threads some links to articles about pedophilia that said a lot of pedophiles talk about teens (or even younger children) "seducing" them. A delusion that children you're sexually attracted to are sexually attracted to YOU and are trying to get you to have sex with them sees to be part of pedophilia.

He sounds like he's trying to (and failing at) making a reference to the Good Old Ways, as other people have mentioned above. Except "10-15 years" isn't *that* long ago. That would be 1997-2002. So he's saying that, possibly after 9/11 or there about, people were still cool with raping kids? That attitudes change wildly during Bush's term, for no reason?

Usually, when you reference the Good Old Ways, you actually reference something *old*, like at least longer than a generation or two. 50 or 100 year range, minimum.

Why, depending on the state the incidents occurred in, it could be recent enough that the statute of limitations might not have expired yet...

dbubb:Agent Smiths Laugh: But see, that's part of the problem with theists. Too many of them presume that if we don't subscribe to their particular myth and all it includes, we must surely be unable to behave in any moral manner.

This is by no means restricted to theists.

I've got no problem with what you've said - but I wonder if you're one of those atheists who doesn't understand the important role that religion has played in the development of moral codes and right/wrong understanding. Also, I believe that religion has played a very strong role in the development of science, contrary to what most people think/believe.

We had moral codes long before we invented religions. Hell, social animals know better than to constantly attack and injure other members of the pack/pride/whatever ebcause they know they'll screw themselves over if they do.

And what kind of moral code can you get from a book full of stories of entire cities, countries, and the entire world being mercilessly slaughtered for the slightest of transgressions? One story is about fifty children being murdered by bears because they called an old man "Baldy" and the guy got mad and asked God to do something and God conjured bears out of thin air to kill the children. Less a moral code than a rule by fear and threat of death.

runujhkj:Agent Smiths Laugh: runujhkj: Man, I hate atheists. They're so annoying, with all of their internet snark. How many people's feelings do they have to hurt before we start doing anything about them?

I know, we're such intolerable bastards when we use critical thinking and reason to argue you into a corner.

And it's SO MUCH FUN watching the theists squirm and contort.

Almost as much fun as a priest finds in watching an altar boy squirm and contort, I'd imagine.

Not really, because committing a crime against a child is very far removed from being able to exercise superior logic in a debate.

dbubb:Agent Smiths Laugh: runujhkj: Man, I hate atheists. They're so annoying, with all of their internet snark. How many people's feelings do they have to hurt before we start doing anything about them?

I know, we're such intolerable bastards when we use critical thinking and reason to argue you into a corner.

And it's SO MUCH FUN watching the theists squirm and contort.

So, if Christopher Hitchens had done something particularly heinous while he lived, would that make you recieve communion?

Is that how it works for you.

Nope, I'd seek his prosecution for whatever crime it was he committed.

But see, that's part of the problem with theists. Too many of them presume that if we don't subscribe to their particular myth and all it includes, we must surely be unable to behave in any moral manner.

Well, I have news for you. I have a very strong moral compass that is in no way dependent on some "higher authority" to work. It works because it's simple. Very, very simple.

1: Inappropriate seductive behavior from a youngster is almost always due to them having previously been sexually abused by someone. Keep in mind here i said inappropriate behavior - like making a run at a priest.

2: The ADULT in that situation is supposed to, you know, BE THE ADULT. Failing to do so is inexcusable.

Benedict expressed a belief that most of these "relationships" are heterosexual in nature, and that historically sexual relationships between men and boys have not been thought of as crimes.

"If you go back 10 or 15 years ago with different sexual difficulties - except for rape or violence - it was very rarely brought as a civil crime. Nobody thought of it that way... And I'm inclined to think, on [a priest's] first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime."

ShannonKW:Here's a thread full of condemnations, furious calls for barbaric punishment, dogmatic claims, black-and-white attitudes, and herd thinking -- some of it the evident result of glossing over an entire page of text to find a line to justify it all. The people doing this are apparently atheists.

The interview itself is characterized by open-mindedness, reluctance to condemn, objectivity, forgoing of moral absolutes, and willingness to make concessions to human nature. This person is a Catholic priest.

It's quite a spectacle to see secular humanism transformed into the demon it was conceived to fight. Friedrich Nietzsche was right.

Perhaps you're missing the differences between not being Christian, being atheist, and being a secular humanist.

That being said, the anger is there because the Catholic hierarchy has systematically protected and enabled priests who molest children. I'd be surprised if that doesn't make you a little angry as well. While I don't agree with the folks suggesting some pretty heinous stuff themselves, their anger is not misplaced.

As for the "open-mindedness, reluctance to condemn, objectivity, forgoing of moral absolutes," fark it. When the problem is a reluctance to punish child molesters, what is needed is MORE condemnation. That being said, given the responses in this thread, maybe some "willingness to make concessions to human nature" would be nice. The priests who are molesting children are people who have done something terrible and likely unforgivable. (No, I don't believe in forgiveness. That's for Christians. But I ain't going to rule out moving on and looking to the future.) A key point is they're people, and they need help. SO HELP THEM!!! What the church has done lately helps nobody.

As for the fact that he seems to be a decent person who likely misspoke and doesn't really mean what he said, that great. But I ain't giving someone extra credit for being a decent person. Even if he's a Catholic priest, because I don't believe that being a priest makes someone a bad person. Mind you, I also don't believe it makes them a good person.

In short, you're trying to get a reaction by condemning those who are angry about the actions of the Catholic Church, so here's a reaction.

historically sexual relationships between men and boys have not been thought of as crimes.

But consensual relationships between men is evil and wrong and destroys the fabric of society and the sanctity of marriage and brings down God's wrath and letting them get married violates your rights because it forces you to accept their heathen lifestyle and it must be stopped at all costs. Gotcha.

Red Shirt Blues:When I used to stay with my Mom she always had ewtn on. I liked this guy. You would listen to him and think OK here's a guy that gets it and is pretty cool. But this.....and in the actual interview in NCR he kind of half way defends Sandusky. WTF?!?!?!?!?

My mother spends about half of her TV time watching ETWN. Any time I'm over there for any length of time I have to frequently step outside or something (I don't smoke), because the things I routinely hear from the talking heads on that channel disgust me...

Mostly because of those times I'd hear my mother parroting the same reprehensible screed.

My mom- most times- is a very nice lady, very kind. And that makes it very easy to see when she's been spending an afternoon in front of the warm glow of fire and brimstone. It's brainwashing, plain and simple. Most of my childhood we never had cable, so we never had access to the network. Ma was always a devoted Catholic of course (I quit at age twelve- for this, among other reasons), but her participation was at that time, mostly in church, mostly silent, and the most fire and brimstone talk she got was when Saint Thomas got a new, younger priest some time after I'd left.

Heck, she started attending a local monastery as an alternative when this new pastor signed on precisely because she didn't care for the tenor of his sermons.

I tell you now, of all the people I've seen idolized on that channel, very little surprises me when the skeletons inevitably come out of the closet. The only thing that mildly shocks me here was that Groeschel himself was the one to open the door to gleefully show us all what he has in his closet.

I guess the assumption here is that only the hardcore converts and devotees are watching, and they're already conditioned enough to accept this sort of sentiment as perfectly reasonable. I've heard my mother on the defense of the Church over the abuse scandal with sentiments like this. Something I find pretty alarming considering she herself was abused by her father at a very young age- if anyone should understand why this sort of talk is repugnant, it should be her.

cookiefleck:Arumat: cookiefleck: I've said it before.. all FARK atheists seem really miserable. Like their life goal is to prove someone wrong.

We're not miserable because our life goal is to prove someone wrong. We're miserable because no matter how many times we prove people wrong, they stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALAICAN'THEARYOU!".

Is it your job to prove someone wrong? Seriously, you're doing the very thing you hate bout your interpretation of Christianity

I'll admit he was probably trolling, so this is the last thing I'll say on the matter.If I'm walking along, and see someone waving a sign that says "1+2=4" and advocating that the law should reflect their belief, am I not morally obligated to show them that they are wrong? Or would it be better to allow them to push to get their law passed, allow the law to do whatever damage it will, and then go through all the annoyance of getting it repealed?

Yes, because there are absolute NO republicans in NY or the northeast.But that is beside the point. The point is most conservatives/GOPers have some nasty beast in the closet that they feed and nurture while they think no one is looking no matter where they happen to live. SO, basically, yes.

All's fair. Not like you could've known the contents of my mind until I said something.

jso2897:cookiefleck: jso2897: cookiefleck: I've said it before.. all FARK atheists seem really miserable. Like their life goal is to prove someone wrong.

Sounds like you are pretty selective in who you talk to and base your opinions on. Something I've noticed about Fark is that like attracts like. The extremist assholes all end up arguing with each other, and characterizing the "other side" as being the (similar to themselves) assholes they choose to talk to.

You being human and not the grand poobah of knowledge should also understand there's another side to faith.

I have no opinions about what "sides" faith possesses. As far as I am concerned, you can believe whatever you want - and if you have the decency to keep it to yourself, and not try to force it on me, we'll get along famously.

That is precisely, functionally, how I operate. I don't care, however, if they try to share their beliefs. It can be interesting to listen to sometimes. I just care if they try to force me to conform to them in whatever way.

I may think a religious person deluded and irrational, but as long as they do not harm others with it, they can have at it. Cross that line though, and I will react caustically.

It's not like I'm not deluded and irrational about some things. Hell, I like broccoli.

The My Little Pony Killer:St_Francis_P: The My Little Pony Killer: Any Fark Christians here to speak out against this guy? No?

Would you settle for an agnostic saint?

Good enough for me. I'm just noting that this is a really good thread for the usual "I'm a Christian, but this guy totally disgusts me" crowd to make an appearance.

I'm an atheist, and I don't give a damn. In the first place it is possible that "[in a] lot of the cases, the youngster - 14, 16, 18 - is the seducer." I seduced a few older men when I was a teenager; they weren't Catholic priests but then I moved in a very non-Catholic world. And whatever grave hormonal disorders some Farkers might suffer from, most of us guys stopped being little boys before we got to be "14. 16, [or] 18."

Should priests be mindful of their vows and not partake with a sexually developed person of either sex, regardless of who's the seducer? Yes, of course: vows, like other promises, should be kept whever possible; if you don't mean to keep it or can't try very hard to then don't make the vow. But I'm not going to get very upset about "abuse" of somebody who in most of the world is old enough to get married and in most cases is mature enough to knock females up.

If it's okay for your average "14, 16, 18" year guy old to consensually fark a buxom "hottie" teacher then it's also okay for him to consensually get it on with a Catholic priest. Even if the priest is male too.

dbubb:Agent Smiths Laugh: But see, that's part of the problem with theists. Too many of them presume that if we don't subscribe to their particular myth and all it includes, we must surely be unable to behave in any moral manner.

This is by no means restricted to theists.

I've got no problem with what you've said - but I wonder if you're one of those atheists who doesn't understand the important role that religion has played in the development of moral codes and right/wrong understanding. Also, I believe that religion has played a very strong role in the development of science, contrary to what most people think/believe.

While religion undoubtedly influenced the development of human morality, I posit that it was neither necessary nor sufficient for it. Admittedly, this is untestable without godlike powers, but the very fact that morality can be rationally justified without resorting to religion is sufficient for me.

Religion probably did made it easier to impress moral memes upon those who weren't prone to rational inquiry. A strong person could try the same thing ("This is morally right because I said so, and if you don't like it I will beat you to death with a rock"), but strong people can be killed by stronger ones, and they eventually die in any case. The concept of an.invincible, immortal arbiter of morality watching your every move and waiting to punish you in a manner invisible to the living is much more effective--provided that you can convince people that it exists (see the aforementioned rock argument). So religion probably did serve as a tool for evolving complex morality (evolution doesn't care whether a meme is actually true), but like most things in evolution, the price for that tool is death and suffering. C'est la vie.

Gyrfalcon:notatrollorami: President Merkin Muffley: notatrollorami: ///Sequestered prison island for life or death, either way. For any true child predator.

Congratulations on increasing the number of child murders. Why do you hate children?

I understand the practical nature of that argument. It stands to reason that the worse the punishment for a given crime the greater the lengths a perpetrator will go to avoid getting caught. How then do we adjust the scales of justice? A night in the stockades with the townspeople jeering for kiddy diddling? Surely that would avoid any temptation the otherwise nice diddler might have to off the kid?

////Not actually a death penalty advocate because the system can't be trusted. Mostly I intended to express the notion that no child predator, if actually guilty, should ever have access to children again. Ever. First offense. It's an unchangeable predilection. But then I'm back to having to trust the system.

///Bad people on every side ruin everything for everyone.

It's a nice theory. Let me adjust it a little more for you:

Statistically, child molesters are likely to themselves have been the victims of molestation as children. That's one reason why they are so desperately hard to treat, even when they want help: Because the behavior has been set so early and deeply it takes years of dedicated therapy AND a genuine desire to change on the part of the predator. Not one or the other, but both.

So what we need to do is acknowledge this fact, first, and mandate intensive therapy for molesters who have indicated a real desire to change. Not optional or "They know the help is out there" but when they get caught they MUST have intensive, aggressive therapy, and probably while being incarcerated, It would need to be something between a mental hospital and a prison in that case. Follow that with monitored release over a period of years at least equal to the length of treatment.

The second thing that must be done is equally intensive and mandatory treatment for the victims. As children, they are more amenable to change, and yet right now, they get the same treatment as their offenders, ironically. "Let their parents take them home and get them help," knowing it is unlikely ever to happen. Instead, kids who are victims MUST receive treatment, on the public dime if necessary, and in their homes or a separate school location. This cannot be an option, or brushed aside with the idea that they're so young, they'll get over it. They won't, and a certain percentage will go on to commit the same kinds of crimes. (And the ones who don't offend will still carry the guilt and scars for the remainder of their lives)

Will this be difficult and costly? Yes. Will it infringe on the molesters' and victims' civil rights? Yes. Will it take many years to see results? Yes. But it is the ONLY thing that will stop child molesters short of execution and prevent future molesters from emerging. Otherwise, we will continue to replay the victimization/molestation cycle over and over again.

On the one hand I wish I wasn't generally pecking out posts on a phone in bed so I could take the time to write well developed, thoughtful, eloquent responses like yours.

On the other hand you do it for me and I get to read it in the nice soothing shade of sunrise pink you've been assigned.

dbubb:Agent Smiths Laugh: But see, that's part of the problem with theists. Too many of them presume that if we don't subscribe to their particular myth and all it includes, we must surely be unable to behave in any moral manner.

This is by no means restricted to theists.

I've got no problem with what you've said - but I wonder if you're one of those atheists who doesn't understand the important role that religion has played in the development of moral codes and right/wrong understanding. Also, I believe that religion has played a very strong role in the development of science, contrary to what most people think/believe.

Here's the thing. None of those moral codes couldn't have been created without all the supernatural trappings involved. There are all social constructs invented by man for man to create functional societies. Problem with religion is all the baggage that comes with it that has been used not to enforce moral codes, but to tyrannize people well beyond the boundaries of any simple morality. Granted that's not the only problem with it, but most of the problems in one way or another come back to creating excuses to wield unreasonable power over other people.

See, that's always been the core purpose of organized religion. Power. People who fail to see that are willfully obtuse, tragically naive, or just simply ignorant of history.

But since no moral code requires supernatural thinking to be valid and conducive to civilization, then why bother tacking on the useless and potentially abusive cargo?

And while religion certainly has ties to philosophy, and philosophy was certainly the beginning of scientific thought, it is no longer needed. Superstition might have seeded the roots of rational thinking as mankind first tried to comprehend the workings of nature, it was certainly our first adolescent attempt at doing so, but we've grown beyond it and have blossomed into the tree of science and reason which actually get results.

See, I won't deny that religion did serve a function, but I state clearly that we have better tools now, and it has become obsolete, so much so that it now serves all too often as an impediment to progress rather than a catalyst.

Take for instance stem cell research. A possible panacea of medical knowledge that could ultimately save inestimable lives. Held back and fought time and again by theistic thinking and sentiment.

I would ask you what's better, using the research to find cures for disease, or allowing a family member to die of a possibly curable disease because "It's god's will."

Keizer_Ghidorah:dbubb: Keizer_Ghidorah: dbubb: Agent Smiths Laugh: But see, that's part of the problem with theists. Too many of them presume that if we don't subscribe to their particular myth and all it includes, we must surely be unable to behave in any moral manner.

This is by no means restricted to theists.

I've got no problem with what you've said - but I wonder if you're one of those atheists who doesn't understand the important role that religion has played in the development of moral codes and right/wrong understanding. Also, I believe that religion has played a very strong role in the development of science, contrary to what most people think/believe.

We had moral codes long before we invented religions. Hell, social animals know better than to constantly attack and injure other members of the pack/pride/whatever ebcause they know they'll screw themselves over if they do.

And what kind of moral code can you get from a book full of stories of entire cities, countries, and the entire world being mercilessly slaughtered for the slightest of transgressions? One story is about fifty children being murdered by bears because they called an old man "Baldy" and the guy got mad and asked God to do something and God conjured bears out of thin air to kill the children. Less a moral code than a rule by fear and threat of death.

Is that really all there is in the Bible? Is Christianity the only religion?

I understand your point but I think that you're overlooking important points of the Christian faith, for which I don't want to be an apologist.

There's plenty in the Bible, most of which can be tossed out and the rest condensed to "Love and care for each other and don't be a dick". Makes it much easier to understand and much less able to be twisted and warped into a weapon against those you dislike.

We're talking about Catholics, not about Buddhists or the cult of Aphrodite, pay attention.

Like I said above, the most important part is "Love each other and don't be a dick". S ...

The term Theist has been thrown around here quite a bit - pay attention.

Why don't you go for just "be excellent to each other?" That has kind of a catchy ring to it.

dbubb:Keizer_Ghidorah: dbubb: Agent Smiths Laugh: But see, that's part of the problem with theists. Too many of them presume that if we don't subscribe to their particular myth and all it includes, we must surely be unable to behave in any moral manner.

This is by no means restricted to theists.

I've got no problem with what you've said - but I wonder if you're one of those atheists who doesn't understand the important role that religion has played in the development of moral codes and right/wrong understanding. Also, I believe that religion has played a very strong role in the development of science, contrary to what most people think/believe.

We had moral codes long before we invented religions. Hell, social animals know better than to constantly attack and injure other members of the pack/pride/whatever ebcause they know they'll screw themselves over if they do.

And what kind of moral code can you get from a book full of stories of entire cities, countries, and the entire world being mercilessly slaughtered for the slightest of transgressions? One story is about fifty children being murdered by bears because they called an old man "Baldy" and the guy got mad and asked God to do something and God conjured bears out of thin air to kill the children. Less a moral code than a rule by fear and threat of death.

Is that really all there is in the Bible? Is Christianity the only religion?

I understand your point but I think that you're overlooking important points of the Christian faith, for which I don't want to be an apologist.

There's plenty in the Bible, most of which can be tossed out and the rest condensed to "Love and care for each other and don't be a dick". Makes it much easier to understand and much less able to be twisted and warped into a weapon against those you dislike.

We're talking about Catholics, not about Buddhists or the cult of Aphrodite, pay attention.

Like I said above, the most important part is "Love each other and don't be a dick". Stories of world-destroying floods, vengeful beings burning cities, blood sacrifices, and a future of overwhelming death and destruction aren't necessary to say "Love each other and don't be a dick".

cookiefleck:I've said it before.. all FARK atheists seem really miserable. Like their life goal is to prove someone wrong.

If we really are that way, it's better than living in constant fear of angering a bipolar sky wizard and constantly telling everyone they're going to be tortured brutally for all eternity if they don't join the particular flavor of cult you belong to.

President Merkin Muffley:notatrollorami: ///Sequestered prison island for life or death, either way. For any true child predator.

Congratulations on increasing the number of child murders. Why do you hate children?

I understand the practical nature of that argument. It stands to reason that the worse the punishment for a given crime the greater the lengths a perpetrator will go to avoid getting caught. How then do we adjust the scales of justice? A night in the stockades with the townspeople jeering for kiddy diddling? Surely that would avoid any temptation the otherwise nice diddler might have to off the kid?

////Not actually a death penalty advocate because the system can't be trusted. Mostly I intended to express the notion that no child predator, if actually guilty, should ever have access to children again. Ever. First offense. It's an unchangeable predilection. But then I'm back to having to trust the system.

notatrollorami:Tarheel_Madness: The My Little Pony Killer: Any Fark Christians here to speak out against this guy? No?

Even Jesus was betrayed by his own people, friend-o. The world is filled with ugly people, some hide behind politics, some shields and guns, and some behind a holy text. Christianity, Islam, paganism...they all have people that make the faith look bad. Is it right that the church hasn't taken a stronger stand against it? No, it's disgusting. But they don't represent all Christians, just like bin Laden didn't represent all Muslims.

/sad hearing about the abuse of children//should there be a death penalty for it?

I am a recovered catholic who agrees with your sentiments. Most religious people I have known, and that's a lot, are well meaning. Demonstrably misguided but good hearted and well meaning.

///Sequestered prison island for life or death, either way. For any true child predator.

Yeah, I can pretty much say THIS. Most religious people I know are truly decent and well meaning. They're open minded and not pushy. But I think that's because most people that I know and associate with are that way.

I think that there are certain crimes that should mean complete banishment from society forever (if such a thing were possible).

thelonearranger:FTFA: "Well, it's not so hard to see - a kid looking for a father and didn't have his own - and they won't be planning to get into heavy-duty sex, but almost romantic, embracing, kissing, perhaps sleeping but not having intercourse or anything like that..."

[dailypicksandflicks.com image 600x436]

/hot

Sorry, that wasn't from the article, it was from the actual interview:http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/father-benedict-groeschel-reflec t s-on-25-years-of-the-franciscan-friars-of/

Tarheel_Madness:The My Little Pony Killer: Any Fark Christians here to speak out against this guy? No?

Even Jesus was betrayed by his own people, friend-o. The world is filled with ugly people, some hide behind politics, some shields and guns, and some behind a holy text. Christianity, Islam, paganism...they all have people that make the faith look bad. Is it right that the church hasn't taken a stronger stand against it? No, it's disgusting. But they don't represent all Christians, just like bin Laden didn't represent all Muslims.

/sad hearing about the abuse of children//should there be a death penalty for it?

I am a recovered catholic who agrees with your sentiments. Most religious people I have known, and that's a lot, are well meaning. Demonstrably misguided but good hearted and well meaning.

///Sequestered prison island for life or death, either way. For any true child predator.

So he openly admitted that these "men of God" are so weak and fallible that they'll succumb to the "seductions" of underage boys (that right there sounds like a heaping bowlful of victim blaming). The best solution is get rid of those people and let the law take care of them.

Also wondering why he mention 18-year-olds, when they hit that age they're now full adults except in the matters of drinking and smoking, which means that (according to them) it's no longer accepted pederasty but unholy homosexuality.

"If you go back 10 or 15 years ago with different sexual difficulties - except for rape or violence - it was very rarely brought as a civil crime. Nobody thought of it that way... And I'm inclined to think, on [a priest's] first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime."

This guy is way beyond "influential" - he's a Catholic mega-star. He's been on EWTN forever. Groeschel is to Catholics as Neill DeGrasse Tyson is to armchair astronomers. People trust him. They listen to him as an authoritative source of information. As friars go, he's a total badass.

And he's saying shiat like this. Kreist.

Oh - and: If you go back 10 or 15 years ago with different sexual difficulties - except for rape or violence - it was very rarely brought as a civil crime. Nobody thought of it that way.

Bullshiat. It's still illegal to have gay sex in many states. And it's ILLEGAL TO RAPE LITTLE BOYS EVERYWHERE, YOU GODDAMN F*CKWIT.

This. I can't believe it's Groeschel. When I used to stay with my Mom she always had ewtn on. I liked this guy. You would listen to him and think OK here's a guy that gets it and is pretty cool. But this.....and in the actual interview in NCR he kind of half way defends Sandusky. WTF?!?!?!?!?

I can see a young man reaching out to a priest as a father figure, but I don't get where that turns into a sexual relationship with the kid seducing the priest.

Does this guy think that some kids look at a priest and think, "He has been like a father to me for the last couple of years, let me see if I can get him to f*ck me up the butt."

Usually the person that is doing the seducing has the most confidence since they are trying to convince the other party to do something they probably initially don't want to.When a kid is looking for a father figure, confidence is one of the things that attracts them to another person, they are looking for the role model.I have a very hard time seeing where an uncertain kid would be the one trying to get the sex in that relationship.

scottydoesntknow:In a recent interview with the National Catholic Register, Father Benedict Groeschel, of the conservative Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, said that teens act as seducers in some sexual abuse cases involving priests.